Introduction
Cyberspace has been the backdrop of difficult discussions over the recent years both on the global stage and within the European Union (EU). Cyberspace or the digital space is nowadays quite different than it was two decades ago. On the global stage, the main topics concern privacy and security, followed by the phenomenon of fake news, while the European topics are concerned also with the socio-economic aspects related to a unified digital space across the EU. No matter the topic, digital issues trickle down to each and every individual and, conversely, each and every level of authority.
The pervasiveness of information and communication technologies (ICTs) can act as a double-edged sword for individuals and authorities. Individuals can be empowered or can be a part of the digital divide. Those with digital skills and access to high technology have better chances in today’s digital society, while those that are a part of the digital divide, in either form, risk continued exclusion from society. Similarly, public authorities must answer to individuals’ and businesses’ challenges by pursuing well-thought strategies to push for digitization and the overall transformation of the economy engulfed in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Recently, national and European authorities have pursued public policies meant to mitigate the threats from the digital space, while creating strategies meant to harness the massive potential of ICTs in society and economy. The decision level that is closest to the individual, the sub-national level, is also involved on its own in this effort, but in its own manner and more often with no direct coordination with the other two levels.
In the context of the pervasiveness of ICTs and the efforts to build a unified digital space by the EU, the interaction between the above-mentioned decision-making levels is shifting. Of course, we can no longer discuss a state-centric model, as defined by Hooghe and Marks. The governance model for the EU has shifted when discussing digital policies, as their evolution points to a gradual shift to the European level (Mărcuţ 2017). The Digital Single Market is a relevant example for this point, as it is an effort to create a harmonized European framework for digital markets.
In this sense, this research aims to assess the extent to which local or sub-national authorities are involved in the digital policy-making. Why the sub-national level? Firstly, they are the closest official entities to the individual and the digital revolution must start at the roots, which are sub-national authorities in this case. Secondly, the involvement of sub-national authorities is a feature of the EU governance model that can create greater value for European integration as a whole. Thirdly, the advancement towards a unified digital space requires policies at all decision-making levels.
The theoretical framework of this research, which is to be presented in this chapter, concerns two governance models. The first refers to the architecture of experimentalist governance, explained in multiple papers by Sabel and Zeitlin and which has been adapted for other policies, such as environmental policy or data protection. The second framework delves deeper into the accepted plurality of actors involved in the functioning of the EU, as the research aims to empower sub-national actors in digital policies with the help of multilevel governance (MLG). The theoretical source for the MLG framework is the research done by Hooghe and Marks.
Why two theoretical outlooks? Both theories regard the EU as a polity and deal with the inner workings of decision-making rather than aiming to provide an overview of the future of European integration. The benefits of the experimentalist framework are that it reflects a “learning by doing” approach to policy-making. This idea is valid for digital policies in the sense that technological innovation has the potential of constantly changing the playing field and, hence, the policies. On the other hand, the benefits of MLG are two-fold. Firstly, they empower the European level, liberating the EU level from the constraint of being merely an agent of Member States (MS). Secondly, they empower local and regional authorities by including them in the governance cycle.
Both theories can contribute to better decision-making and implementation as regards digital issues. Experimentalist governance explores mainly the relation between the central and local units—the European level versus the national level. One shortcoming of experimentalist governance may refer to the fact that the European level seems secondary to the decision-making process of national actors, despite its control powers that the authors mention. In this sense, the MLG framework contributes to the theoretical analysis of the paper by putting more emphasis also on the supranational level, which does not merely act as an agent of the national preferences (Hooghe and Marks 2001, p. 3). One of the keywords in Hooghe and Marks’ analysis of the supranational level is its ability to act as an “independent” policy-making entity. In this framework, the EU can act more as a facilitator with abilities to control agents’ performance. MLG regards the EU as a full-fledged polity that can act independently.
This chapter begins by offering a brief outlook at governance with a focus on the EU with references from the literature, then it moves on to focus more on the two theoretical outlooks that form the core of the research.
EU Governance in a Nutshell
Defining Governance
The literature emphasizes the often-vague character of governance. In this sense, a brief discussion about what governance is not can be helpful. Firstly, the concept was derived from government, but it has become an alternative to it because it challenges the traditional authority lines of government. The government means the state and the theory of governance affirms that new policy challenges require a different architecture, one that can go beyond the state, but not necessarily outside the state framework (Kjaer 2010, p. 111). Secondly, it is not a singular theory aiming to explain policy in totality, precisely because of challenging issues (Levi-Faur 2012, p. 33). Bartolini provides two similar antagonisms of governance, one referring to the idea of governmental control and the second one referring to dealings between private actors that have no consequences beyond them. As a result, the literature provides a preliminary definition of governance as a normative system situated between the constraints of governmental bureaucracy and private interactions (Bartolini 2011, p. 7). This preliminary definition leaves room for various discussions on governance and, in this sense, the prime feature of governance is fluidity.
Why fluidity? Firstly, governance is tasked with analysing the interactions of actors when aiming to achieve a policy result. This interaction takes the form of negotiation and, hence, governance can be seen as a means of facilitating agreement with the help of negotiation between actors (Ion 2013, p. 78). Levi-Faur argues that the emergence of governance has been signalled by a series of changes in the distribution of authority, resulting in several spheres of authority that can either cooperate or be in competition with each other (Levi-Faur 2012).
Bartolini’s explanation of governance as a frame concept describes a fluid system of norm production where there is a lot of variation. The identity of the actors involved in the so-called co-production is not only dichotomous, divided into private and public actors, but rather there is room for innovative decision-making entities resulted from various shifts (Bartolini 2011, p. 8). One such entity could be the EU. In this sense, institutional transformation can be one of the keys to understanding governance, in general, and European governance in particular. The polity has constantly evolved across the decades and it has done so with the creation and/or transformation of institutions at various levels. Transformation involves innovation in decision-making in various directions—top to bottom, bottom towards the upper level or side by side (Levi-Faur 2012). Governance is the umbrella term for these institutional transformations within an entity or between entities, transformations which create also new forms of interaction.
The resulting mechanisms are more fluid than the traditional government and, supporters argue, are better for decision-making. Hence, the entity suffering most of these transformations is the state, whose traditional mechanisms of decision-making from top to bottom, have been shifted in various ways depending on the policy that is tackled. However, this does not mean that the state is obsolete, given that governance research is not focused on the evolution of the state, rather on the way in which policies are decided and implemented. In fact, according to some researchers referenced by Kjaer, policy-making implies a movement beyond the state rather than a cancellation of the role of the state and moving beyond it (Kjaer 2010, p. 111). The state is still a player in policy-making but, given the fluidity of governance styles, it must share its competences with other players that have a stake in decision-making. This opinion is shared also by Bartolini, who states that the role of the state in governance is no longer fixed, but it still remains a key player in the production of norms (Bartolini 2011, p. 9). What else experiences fluidity in governancing? The level of interaction is also subject to variety, which can range from a simple consultation to participation in the effective decision-making process (Bartolini 2011, pp. 9–10).
The multiplication of actors means that their roles change constantly depending on the type of policy or intervention. In the case of the EU, Wallace argues that there is a distribution of role in policy-making, which is agreed upon and activated with the help of the treaties regulating the relation between the EU and the state and other types of legislations (Wallace et al. 2010).
What are the directions of these distributions of authority? Levi-Faur discusses three major directions: upward, downward, and horizontally (Levi-Faur 2012, p. 31). The upward distribution of authority refers to the creation of new spheres at the transnational, intergovernmental or global level. The downward distribution considers granting more authority to the local and regional spheres, while the horizontal dissemination focuses on a new type of actors involved in governance for the sake of transparency, such as private actors or the civil society. This dissemination can take place in different directions for the same entity. In the case of the EU, these shifts have taken place at all levels. Local authorities have been empowered within the cohesion policy, while some competences have shifted to the supranational level, in the cases of monetary policy for instance.
The fluidity of governance can also be a drawback in some instances. In the case of this research, institutional tr...